the psychology of revolution-第8章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



reformation　had　to　learn　that　despite　their　liberalism　they　were

forced　to　govern　by　methods　very　like　those　employed　by　the

government　overthrown。　　They　could　neither　prevent　summary

executions　nor　wholesale　massacres　of　Christians；　nor　could　they

remedy　a　single　abuse。



It　would　be　unjust　to　reproach　them。　　What　in　truth　could　they

have　done　to　change　a　people　whose　traditions　have　been　fixed　so

long；　whose　religious　passions　are　so　intense；　and　whose

Mohammedans；　although　in　the　minority；　legitimately　claim　to

govern　the　sacred　city　of　their　faith　according　to　their　code？　

How　prevent　Islam　from　remaining　the　State　religion　in　a　country

where　civil　law　and　religious　law　are　not　yet　plainly　separated；

and　where　faith　in　the　Koran　is　the　only　tie　by　which　the　idea　of

nationality　can　be　maintained？



It　was　difficult　to　destroy　such　a　state　of　affairs；　so　that　we

were　bound　to　see　the　re…establishment　of　an　autocratic

organisation　with　an　appearance　of　constitutionalismthat　is　to

say；　practically　the　old　system　once　again。　　Such　attempts　afford

a　good　example　of　the　fact　that　a　people　cannot　choose　its

institutions　until　it　has　transformed　its　mind。





4。　　Social　elements　which　survive　the　changes　of　Government　after

Revolution。





What　we　shall　say　later　on　as　to　the　stable　foundation　of　the

national　soul　will　enable　us　to　appreciate　the　force　of　systems

of　government　that　have　been　long　established；　such　as　ancient

monarchies。　　A　monarch　may　easily　be　overthrown　by　conspirators；

but　these　latter　are　powerless　against　the　principles　which　the

monarch　represents。　　Napoleon　at　his　fall　was　replaced　not　by　his

natural　heir；　but　by　the　heir　of　kings。　　The　latter　incarnated　an

ancient　principle；　while　the　son　of　the　Emperor　personified　ideas

that　were　as　yet　imperfectly　established　in　men's　minds。



For　the　same　reason　a　minister；　however　able；　however　great　the

services　he　has　rendered　to　his　country；　can　very　rarely

overthrow　his　Sovereign。　　Bismarck　himself　could　not　have　done

so。　　This　great　minister　had　single…handed　created　the　unity　of

Germany；　yet　his　master　had　only　to　touch　him　with　his　finger　and

he　vanished。　　A　man　is　as　nothing　before　a　principle　supported　by

opinion。



But　even　when；　for　various　reasons；　the　principle　incarnated　by　a

government　is　annihilated　with　that　government；　as　happened　at

the　time　of　the　French　Revolution；　all　the　elements　of　social

organisation　do　not　perish　at　the　same　time。



If　we　knew　nothing　of　France　but　the　disturbances　of　the　last

hundred　years　and　more　we　might　suppose　the　country　to　live　in　a

state　of　profound　anarchy。　　Now　her　economic；　industrial；　and

even　her　political　life　manifests；　on　the　contrary；　a　continuity

that　seems　to　be　independent　of　all　revolutions　and　governments。



The　fact　is　that　beside　the　great　events　of　which　history　treats

are　the　little　facts　of　daily　life　which　the　books　neglect　to

tell。　　They　are　ruled　by　imperious　necessities　which　halt　for　no

man。　　Their　total　mass　forms　the　real　framework　of　the　life　of

the　people。



While　the　study　of　great　events　shows　us　that　the　nominal

government　of　France　has　been　frequently　changed　in　the　space　of

a　century；　an　examination　of　the　little　daily　events　will　prove；

on　the　contrary；　that　her　real　government　has　been　little

altered。



Who　in　truth　are　the　real　rulers　of　a　people？　　Kings　and

ministers；　no　doubt；　in　the　great　crises　of　national　life；　but

they　play　no　part　whatever　in　the　little　realities　which　make　up

the　life　of　every　day。　　The　real　directing　forces　of　a　country

are　the　administrations；　composed　of　impersonal　elements　which

are　never　affected　by　the　changes　of　government。　　Conservative　of

traditions；　they　are　anonymous　and　lasting；　and　constitute　an

occult　power　before　which　all　others　must　eventually　bow。　　Their

action　has　even　increased　to　such　a　degree　that；　as　we　shall

presently　show；　there　is　a　danger　that　they　may　form　an　anonymous

State　more　powerful　than　the　official　State。　　France　has　thus

come　to　be　governed　by　heads　of　departments　and　government

clerks。　　The　more　we　study　the　history　of　revolutions　the　more　we

discover　that　they　change　practically　nothing　but　the　label。　　To

create　a　revolution　is　easy；　but　to　change　the　soul　of　a　people

is　difficult　indeed。







CHAPTER　IV



THE　PART　PLAYED　BY　THE　PEOPLE　IN　REVOLUTIONS



1。　　The　stability　and　malleability　of　the　national　mind。



The　knowledge　of　a　people　at　any　given　moment　of　its　history

involves　an　understanding　of　its　environment　and　above　all　of　its

past。　　Theoretically　one　may　deny　that　past；　as　did　the　men　of

the　Revolution；　as　many　men　of　the　present　day　have　done；　but　its

influence　remains　indestructible。



In　the　past；　built　up　by　slow　accumulations　of　centuries；　was

formed　the　aggregation　of　thoughts；　sentiments；　traditions；　and

prejudices　constituting　the　national　mind　which　makes　the

strength　of　a　race。　　Without　it　no　progress　is　possible。　　Each

generation　would　necessitate　a　fresh　beginning。



The　aggregate　composing　the　soul　of　a　people　is　solidly

established　only　if　it　possesses　a　certain　rigidity；　but　this

rigidity　must　not　pass　a　certain　limit；　or　there　would　be　no　such

thing　as　malleability。



Without　rigidity　the　ancestral　soul　would　have　no　fixity；　and

without　malleability　it　could　not　adapt　itself　to　the　changes　of

environment　resulting　from　the　progress　of　civilization。



Excessive　malleability　of　the　national　mind　impels　a　people　to

incessant　revolutions。　　Excess　of　rigidity　leads　it　to

decadence。　　Living　species；　like　the　races　of　humanity；　disappear

when；　too　fixedly　established　by　a　long　past；　they　become

incapable　of　adapting　themselves　to　new　conditions　of　existence。



Few　peoples　have　succeeded　in　effecting　a　just　equilibrium

between　these　two　contrary　qualities　of　stability　and

malleability。　　The　Romans　in　antiquity　and　the　English　in　modern

times　may　be　cited　among　those　who　have　best　attained　it。



The　peoples　whose　mind　is　most　fixed　and　established　often　effect

the　most　violent　revolutions。　　Not　having　succeeded　in　evolving

progressively；　in　adapting　themselves　to　changes　of　environment；

they　are　forced　to　adapt　themselves　violently　when　such

adaptation　becomes　indispensable。



Stability　is　only　acquired　very　slowly。　　The　history　of　a　race　is

above　all　the　story　of　its　long　efforts　to　establish　its　mind。　

So　long　as　it　has　not　succeeded　it　forms　a　horde　of　barbarians

without　cohesion　and　strength。　　After　the　invasions　of　the　end　of

the　Roman　Empire　France　took　several　centuries　to　form　a　national

soul。



She　finally　achieved　one；　but　in　the　course　of　centuries　this

soul　finally　became　too　rigid。　　With　a　little　more　malleability；

the　ancient　monarchy　would　have　been　slowly　transformed　as　it　was

elsewhere；　and　we　should　have　avoided；　together　with　the

Revolution　and　its　consequences；　the　heavy　task　of　remaking　a

national　soul。



The　preceding　considerations　show　us　the　part　of　race　in　the

genesis　of　revolutions；　and　explain　why　the　same　revolutions　will

produce　such　different　effects　in　different　countries；　why；　for

example；　the　ideas　of　the　French　Revolution；　welcomed　with

such　enthusiasm　by　some　peoples；　were　rejected　by　others。



Certainly　England；　although　a　very　stable　country；　has　suffered

two　revolutions　and　slain　a　king；　but　the　mould　of　her　mental

armour　was　at　once　stable　enough　to　retain　the　acquisitions　of

the　past　and　malleable　enough　to　modify　them　only　within　the

necessary　limits。　　Never　did　England　dream；　as　did　the　men　of　the

French　Revolution；　of　destroying　the　ancestral　heritage　in　order

to　erect　a　new　society　in　the　name　of　reason。



‘‘While　the　Frenchman；''　writes　M。　A。　Sorel；　‘‘despised　his

government；　detested　his　clergy；　hated　the　nobility；　and　revolted

against　the　laws；　the　Englishman　was　proud　of　his　religion；　his

constitution；　his　aristocracy；　his　House　of　Lords。　　These　were

like　so　many　towers　of　the　formidable　Bastille　in　which　he

entrenched　himself；　under　the　British　standard；　to　judge　Europe

and　cover　her　with　contempt。　　He　admitted　that　the　command　was

disputed　inside　the　fort；　but　no　stranger　must　approach。''



The　influence　of　race　in　the　destiny　of　the　peoples　appears

plainly　in　the　history　of　the　perpetual　revolutions　of　the

Spanish　republics　of　South　America。　　Composed　of　half…castes；

that　is　to　say；　of　individuals　whose　diverse　heredities　have

dissociated　their　ancestral　characteristics；　these　populations

have　no　national　soul　and　therefore　no　stability。　　A　people　of

half…castes　is　always　ungovernable。



If　we　would　learn　more　of　the　differences　of　political　capacity

which　the　racial　factor　creates　we　must　examine　the　same　nation

as　governed　by　two　races　successively。



The　event　is　not　rare　in　history。　　It　has　been　manifested　in　a

striking　manner　of　late　in　Cuba　and　the　Philippines；　which　passed

suddenly　from　the　rule　of　Spain　to　that　of　the　United　States。



We　know　in　what　anarchy　and　poverty　Cuba　existed　under　Spanish

rule；　we　know；　too；　to　what　a　degree　of　prosperity　the　island　was

brought　in　a　few　years　when　it　fell　into　the　hands　of　the　United

States。



The　same　experience　was　repeated　in　the　Philippines；　which　for

centuries　had　been　governed　by　Spain。　　Finally　the　country　was　no

more　than　a　vast　jungle；　the　home　of　epidemics　of　every　kind；

where　a　miserable　population　vegetated　without　commerce　or

industry。　　After　a　few　years　of　American　rule　the　country　was

entirely　transformed：　malaria；　yellow　fever；　plague　and　cholera

had　entirely　disappeared。　　The　swamps　were　drained；　the　country

was　covered　with　railways；　factories　and　schools。　　In　thirteen

years　the　mortality　was　reduced　by　two…thirds。



It　is　to　such　examples　that　we　must　refer　the　theorist　who　has

not　yet　grasped　the　profound　significance　of　the　word　race；　and

how　far　the　ancestral　soul　of　a　people　rules　over　its　destiny。





2。　　How　the　people　regards　Revolution。





The　part　of　the　people　has　been　the　same　in　all　revolutions。　　It

is　never　the　people　that　conceives　them　nor　directs　them。　　Its

activity　is　released　by　means　of　leaders。



Only　when　the　direct　interests　of　the　people　are　involved　do　we

see；　as　recently　in　Champagne；　any　fraction　of　the　people　rising

spontaneously。　　A　movement　thus　localised　constitutes　a　mere

riot。



Revolution　is　easy　when　the　leaders　are　very　influential。　　Of

this　Portugal　and　Brazil　have　recently　furnished　proofs。　　But　new

ideas　penetrate　the　people　very　slowly　indeed。　　Generally　it

accepts　a　revolution　without　knowing　why；　and　when　by　chance　it

does　succeed　in　understanding　why；　the　revolution　is　over　long

ago。



The　people　will　create　a　revolution　because　it　is　persuaded　to　do

so；　but　it　does　not　understand　very　much　of　the　ideas　of　its

leaders；　it　interprets　them